I am making an incredibly simple point about freedom and property, and then we can move up from there. I am still having that conversation with Santara, if you would take notice.

You invented a motivation, and then attacked me for it even after multiple clarifications. One of us is angry and looking for a gotcha, and it certainly isn't me



Oh man, I'm doing exactly what I've said I'm doing all along?

WHAT AN INCREDIBLE DEDUCTION!

This was never a gotcha at libertarians. This was, from the start, a conversation about the nature of property. You tried to morph it into a conversation about libertarianism.

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Apr 8 2022 11:22am

you're being walked step by step through the formation of libertarian ideology, in which those who were opposed to governments had to form ideas about how they can still form a peaceful society that doesnt devolve into chaos.

as i said earlier anarchists also dont wish for this chaos, and have said all along no one wants that.

how to create a system of property, who should still settle disputes of property, how to define the NAP, who should punish those who break the NAP against others, etc.

you've dialed back all of that formation of an ideology to raise a simple question that caused the creation of that ideology.

2022 libertarians dont want a country without any government, 2022 anarchists dont either. absolute freedom to make any point about anything on the modern ideologies is a strawman, its been dealt with for hundreds of years lol.

Property as a concept predates government. It's as old as civilization. I personally think it even predates organized civilizations back to hunter and gatherer times. It basically can be traced to when two humans first came together and one had something a pebble, a spear, a piece of meat and the other one didn't. Once we moved from a state of nature to the social contract (even a group of hunter and gatherers getting together for a hunt is a social contract) the state of nature becomes pushed out, as those existences are mutually exclusive. Certain behavior becomes unwelcomed and discouraged, killing, stealing, etc. You can't just bash your hunting mate over the head and take his piece of meat because that's a violation of the unspoken contract that formed with inherent property rights.

We can have that conversation if you want, but that's not the conversation we've been having.

Dude, just stop trying to morph every conversation we have into the one you wish we were having. Santara and I are having a nice conversation about the fundamental nature of property.

If that's not something you want to have just say so instead of trying to force the conversation to an entirely different direction.

I agree with pretty much all of this.

We lost some degree of freedom when we decided property exists, and then lost another degree of freedom when we decided to form society.

i replied to you on a non-property post, you replied to me with your simplistic point, ofthevoid correctly identified what 2022 libertarianism feels about it, you resorted to "we have to get rid of property because libertarians want the govt out of property", ignoring as he correctly said in 2022 libertarians realize isnt possible. then he corrected you again, and you responded "but im saying the govt doesnt exist".

all harkening back to my post that started this saying attacks on libertarianism ala "taxes are theft", "why do u accept there has to be a govt", etc are cringey and uninformed about what the party strives for.

as void correctly said, because its been clear all along:

Except I wasn't saying the Libertarians think all government should be abolished. I was very obviously talking about what the libertarian left wants. Notice that this started with me saying the only ones who fundamentally value freedom are the libertarian left.

Really this comes down to you defining freedom in the libertarian sense, while the whole time I'm being clear that I'm talking about it in the absolute sense.















When you actually show the quotes like I've been doing instead of intentionally misquoting them, that's pretty obvious.

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Apr 8 2022 01:36pm

me: we get it right, you other people only get it half right.

you: let me draw up an unrealistic scenario that doesnt represent anything in real terms based on what you just said to show that you dont like freedom either because i'll not redefine freedom in a regressive way instead of just admitting my side of the aisle is authoritative on half of what freedom means in reality to everyone and moving on.


we all agree what freedom is in 2022, you lefties hate half of freedom, righties hate hte other half, liberarians left or right leaning are generally ok with all of the freedom. its really that simple, u hate half freedom, and that's fine, all statists do.

You: we get it right, you other people only get it half right.
Me: Actually if you want the group that most fundamentally values the thing you claim to be right on, that would be an entirely different group

You: Stop strawmanning our definition of freedom
Me: I'm not, I'm specifically saying you are taking a limited definition and the more fundamentalists are left libertarians

You: Stop strawmanning me but also stop talking in philosophical terms! You should be talking only in concrete terms using the exact definitions I am laying out or its a straw man!


If you want to talk about "what freedom is in 2022" we can have that conversation, but don't sit here and pretend I didn't make it very clear that's not what I was talking about lol

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Apr 8 2022 02:34pm

no u made it very clear what you were talking about, then i told you for a few pages its dumb to talk about that because it doesnt represent you, me, or anyone. u later called it derailing because santara came in after the fact to pick up the philosophical conversation i didnt think was worth anyone's time, and still think is a low IQ line of stuff that doesnt represent reality. we may as well ponder what the world would be like with a red sky or if water had the consistency of mayonaise. this isnt Philosophy 101 lol, been there, was bored by that.

but please tell me who gets freedom as i define it better on the aspects i care about, i am afterall very inexperienced in politics and have no idea who i should support and vote for.